James v. Cate

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Masala Majid James. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/9/14. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/10/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lrcS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MASALA MAJID JAMES,

Case No. 13-cv-01021-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

9
10

MATTHEW CATE,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

14

Masala James, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

15

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The sole claim in the petition alleges that petitioner was compelled

16

to waive his right to represent himself at trial because he was refused direct access to a law library

17

while in custody and was provided insufficient access to legal materials. Petitioner was

18

represented by counsel at a bench trial and was found guilty.

19

Petitioner was charged with one count of second degree robbery, and it was alleged that he

20

had fourteen prior convictions, seven of which constituted strikes, and he had served prior prison

21

terms. Clerk’s Transcript (“CT”) at 1-4. He was found guilty and sentenced to 18 years in prison.

22

CT at 722-31. The specific facts of the underlying crimes are not relevant to the claim in the

23

petition. Petitioner appealed, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a

24

published decision. People v. James, 202 Cal. Ct. App. 323 (2012). The California Supreme

25

Court and the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for review. Answer, Exs. F-K.

26

Petitioner then filed this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 6, 2013. The

27

Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent has filed

28

an answer, and petitioner filed a traverse. The petition is denied.

1
2

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

4

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The

5

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) amended § 2254 to impose

6

new restrictions on federal habeas review. A petition may not be granted with respect to any claim

7

that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim:

8

“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

9

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted

10

in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

12

“Under the ‘contrary to’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court

13

arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if

14

the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially

15

indistinguishable facts.” Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000).

16

“Under the ‘unreasonable application’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if

17

the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s

18

decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413.

19

“[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its

20

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law

21

erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 411. A

22

federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state

23

court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409.

24

Here, the California Supreme Court summarily denied petitioner’s habeas petition. The

25

California Court of Appeal, in its opinion on direct review, addressed the claim petitioner raises in

26

the instant petition. The California Court of Appeal thus was the highest court to have reviewed

27

the claims in a reasoned decision, and it is the Court of Appeal’s decision that this Court reviews

28

herein. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803-04 (1991).
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

III.

LAW LIBRARY ACCESS
A.

Background
The California Court of Appeal set forth the relevant background information

regarding the trial court proceedings:
Although the record is incomplete on this issue, it appears that
James made a successful motion for self-representation, pursuant to
Faretta, sometime in December 2007.
Thereafter, James
represented himself at the preliminary hearing and throughout
extensive pretrial proceedings. During this time, James filed
numerous pretrial motions, including a motion to dismiss prior
convictions and a motion to set aside the information.
On December 9, 2008, James, who was in custody throughout these
proceedings, filed a motion seeking an order directing the Alameda
County Sheriff’s Office to provide him escorted access to the county
law library. In support of that motion, he submitted, as an exhibit to
his declaration, a copy of a “Legal Information Request” form. That
form includes a space for the inmate to designate five items that he
or she wants to receive. It also states: “In the information request
blank lines at the bottom of the form you may ask for specific cases
or code sections, and/or general information about a topic that
concerns you. [¶] If you want a specific case, please provide as
much information as you can such as case name, citation, and year
of decision. For example, People v. Smith, 1 C.A.4th 233, (1977).
[¶] If you want to see a particular law or statute, you may ask for it
by a specific reference such as Penal Code section 415, or by subject
such as ‘Laws or Code sections about disturbing the peace.’ [¶] If
you want to read general information about a topic that concerns
you, ask for information by naming the topic such as parole
violations, probation, divorce, child custody, etc.”
(Some
capitalization omitted.)
The Sheriff’s Office opposed the motion, arguing that cost and
security interests preclude it from personally escorting James, or any
other inmate, to a law library. They also argued that James was
nonetheless provided constitutionally adequate access to legal
resources. A declaration, in opposition to James’s motion was
provided from Richard Williams, an attorney who owns Legal
Research Associates (LRA). Williams and his staff, consisting of
paralegals and trained research assistants, provide legal research
assistance to inmates housed in Alameda County’s jails.
Williams, in his declaration, described the services provided by
LRA:
“6. The LRA program operates as follows:
a. An inmate wanting legal research materials completes a Request
Form available in the housing units.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

b. The Request Forms are collected daily by jail staff, logged in
there, and then sent by Fax transmission to the office of LRA.
c. The Request Forms are logged in at LRA to show date of receipt
and prioritized for pro per inmates and other inmates having
immediately impending court dates.
d. LRA staff then collects information responsive to each inmate’s
Requests and inserts that information into unsealed envelopes
addressed to the inmate. (These envelopes are unsealed to allow
easy inspection by jail personnel to ensure that nothing improper is
being sent to the inmates.)
e. Each day the completed responses are bundled and sent by
overnight courier to the county jails. The date each response is
returned is logged to establish a record of the time taken by LRA to
complete each response. [¶] ... [¶]
“10. The legal resource materials, books and periodicals that are
available for LRA to use in responding to inmate requests rival the
materials, books and periodicals that are available in the best law
libraries in California. LRA maintains substantial electronic
subscriptions with Lexis Nexis and Westlaw that enable provision of
on-point research material on virtually any issue that an inmate
might have. The resources are the most current available. Our
electronic library includes all California statutes and cases as well as
statutes and cases from all other states, federal statutes and cases,
the full Witkin Library, California Jurisprudence, American
Jurisprudence, ALR, California Forms of Pleading and Practice
(civil), California Criminal Defense Practice, the full Rutter Group
publication, California and federal jury instructions, and numerous
other state and federal secondary sources. We also have access to
forms on the California Judicial Council website, as well as other on
line resources.
“11. An inmate who knows which cases, code sections, or sections
from various secondary sources she/he wishes to review can obtain
them by referring to them by citations. Cases can be obtained by all
or a portion of a case name. LRA staff will do a very thorough
search, even including altering the spelling of a case name, in an
effort to locate a case requested by an inmate. Only after an
exhaustive search will LRA send a memo to an inmate advising that
we were unable to locate a requested item.
“12. To assist inmates who are frequently unacquainted with or
untrained in legal research LRA has developed and compiled
approximately 500 topical information packets containing
information on subjects that inmates frequently ask about....
“13. These packets enable an inmate to obtain extensive information
on a topic of interest without knowing the technical name of a
procedure or subject, a specific code section, or a specific research
resource. For example, using plain English an inmate can obtain
information on homicide or robbery or bail without knowing
specific code sections. These packets typically include statutes, text
from recognized secondary sources such as Witkin or Cal Jur and,
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

where appropriate, either forms or examples of forms. Packets
dealing with specific offenses include standard jury instructions....
“14. Our criminal packets include packets pertaining to criminal
procedural issues. For example, there are packets for motions to set
aside an information ..., to suppress evidence ..., for a speedy trial, to
strike priors, a Marsden motion, and preliminary hearings to name a
few. There are packets that address sentencing, enhancements,
defenses, and writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and prohibition,
and civil rights complaints.
“15. Motions and procedural packets include sample motion forms
including points and authorities and textual information from
treatises such as Witkin and/or Criminal Defense Practice that
discuss the procedural format and substantive basis of the motion
and/or procedural issue. These secondary sources provide extensive
references to cases and statutes relevant to the issue in question. [¶]
... [¶]
“22. ... Once the inmate has a topical packet, he/she can request
specific cases, ALR citations, annotated statutes, and/or
Shepardization treatment of a citation.
In response to
Shepardization requests, LRA currently provides the inmate results
in the format utilized by West Key Cite that includes information
concerning treatment of the case in subsequent decisions.”
Denying James’s motion, the court (Hon. Kevin Murphy) stated: “It
doesn’t appear to me that either from your own mind and your own
intelligence combined with the access that you have through LRA ...
that you have any problem in bringing it to the attention of this
Court the motions that you want to make, the ideas that you have, or
the things that you’re trying to accomplish. [¶] ... I haven’t counted
the number of cases that you cited, the number of Rules of Court
that you’ve cited, the number of quotes that you have from cases,
but it’s a lot, and I’ve spent a lot of time reading the papers that
you’ve filed. [¶] I don’t feel I’m in a position of dealing with
someone who has simply run into a cement wall and been denied
access to or denied the ability to research to read and write and
present arguments to the Court.”
Trial was scheduled to begin on March 9, 2009. In January 2009,
James submitted a motion for a continuance, arguing that he needed
more time to prepare a defense because he was limited in his ability
to conduct legal research. Judge Murphy granted the motion and set
June 1, 2009, as the new trial date. On May 15, 2009, James filed
another motion for continuance, raising essentially the same
argument. This motion was denied. On June 1, 2009, James asked
to be represented by a deputy public defender. James noted, at the
time, that he had sought unsuccessfully to continue representing
himself with appointment of advisory counsel. The trial date was
continued and a deputy public defender thereafter appeared as
James’s counsel.
In April 2010, James’s appointed counsel filed a motion requesting
dismissal of the information on the grounds that James’s “6th
Amendment right to represent himself was sabotaged by the
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

limitations placed on his opportunity to do legal research, the
limitation on possessing CD’s in jail that resulted in his having to do
his preliminary hearing without access to recorded witness
statements, and the denial of his timely request for a continuance of
his jury trial that resulted in his being forced to give up his right to
represent himself [in] order to protect his right to effective
assistance of counsel.” In a declaration submitted in support of that
motion, James stated: “Alameda County does not have a law library
available to its jail inmates. Instead, it has a system that requires
inmates to put in requests for legal materials. [¶] ... That system
does not give inmates a viable opportunity to do real legal research.
It requires the inmate to be able to know what to write on a ‘Legal
Information Request’ form in order to get it. This requirement that
one must know in advance what the potential legal issues may be
before being able to research any issues creates a great risk that
many viable legal issues will be missed by inmates invoking their
right to defend themselves. [¶] ... I needed to repeatedly delay my
case because the process of having to guess what cases I needed and
then wait for the requested cases to be provided to me was so slow
and cumbersome.”
James’s declaration also provided: “On June 1, 2009, I again
requested a continuance. It was denied and I was sent to a trial
court. When I made my request for a continuance in the trial court, I
was told I would have to start picking a jury on Wednesday June 3
whether I was ready or not, and that the only way to avoid that
would be to ask that a Public Defender be appointed to represent me.
[¶] ... Given a choice of either waiving my Constitutional right to
represent myself, or my Constitutional right to effective assistance
of counsel, I agreed to waive my right to represent myself. I did not
want to give up this right, and feel that I had no choice because the
inadequate resources that had been provided to me had made it
impossible to be ready and prepared for trial at that time.”
At the hearing on the motion, Williams testified regarding the legal
research services provided by LRA to jail inmates. Williams
testified that James submitted more than 59 requests for materials.
LRA complied with each of James’s requests within two working
days, as mandated by the Alameda County contract.
Judge Kurtz denied James’s motion to dismiss, providing the
following reasoning: “‘[T]he crucial question underlying all [of]
defendant’s constitutional claims is whether he had reasonable
access to the ancillary services that were reasonably necessary for
his defense.’ [¶] That, I believe, states the law as it exists at this
point. Whether or not there is reasonable access. Not absolute
access, not access to all that a defendant may wish to have, but
rather whether there is reasonable access. [¶] The idea that incustody inmates would be escorted to the county law library so they
can do their legal research, presumably if they’re in custody they
would have to be accompanied by deputies, to be blunt, strikes me
as a bit absurd. That is not in any way a reasonable possibility. [¶]
... [¶] Now, personally I think this is an interesting issue. The
United States Supreme Court has ruled in Faretta ... that defendants
have a right to represent themselves. And I think that ...
overwhelmingly, people are going to realize that someone who’s
6

1
2
3
4
5
6

representing himself or herself needs to have access to legal
materials. [¶] I think it’s also fair to say that given the times we live
in, it is naïve to think that resources are unlimited and it is naïve to
think that many of our governmental bodies are going to try to
comply with the constitutional requirements, but with the lowest use
of resources that can be provided. [¶] ... [¶] ... I have reviewed
much of the court file, it is in two large volumes. There have been a
multitude of motions and requests that have been made. And looking
at it, and looking at what’s provided, and listening to Mr. Williams,
it does appear to me that the system provided by Alameda County,
in fact, complies with the constitutional mandate. It is not
perfection, but perfection is not required.”

7

James, 202 Cal. Ct. App. at 329-34 (footnote omitted). After discussing the relevant state and

8

federal law, the California Court of Appeal denied the claim:
James’s argument, as we understand it, is that his decision to
proceed with appointed counsel was coerced because he faced an
unconstitutional alternative: proceeding pro se with insufficient
access to the legal research materials required to prepare his defense.
We thus first consider whether James’s constitutional rights were
violated by the fact that he lacked direct access to a law library.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

...

13

As both Judge Murphy and Judge Kurtz correctly concluded, James
was provided “reasonable access” to the services reasonably
necessary for his own defense. (People v. Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at
p. 734, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485, 115 P.3d 1145.) We reject James’s
contention that the Alameda County jail provides only a “paging”
system for access to legal research materials. It does not. “A paging
system allows a prisoner to request specific volumes. The
significant features of such a system are that the prisoner must know
in advance which volumes he will need to review and that the
process of ordering and returning books drastically prolongs legal
research.” (Toussaint v. McCarthy (9th Cir.1986) 801 F.2d 1080,
1109, fn. 30 (Toussaint).)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

We agree with James that it is unrealistic to expect lay persons to
“perform legal research effectively by having to designate in
advance which pages of a law book are needed, and then designating
other pages as a result of reviewing the first designation.” For this
reason, some true “paging” systems have been condemned as
violating the federal constitution. (Toussaint, supra, 801 F.2d at pp.
1109–1110.) However, the “paging” system at issue in Toussaint
was limited to advance designation of specifically identified
research materials, and permitted an inmate to order only five books
per week, which would then be delivered to his or her cell. (Id. at p.
1109.) In Toussaint, a case involving convicted prison inmates
rather than pretrial detainees, the court held that meaningful access
to the courts required that a prisoner either be provided with
reasonable access to a law library or the state must provide that
prisoner legal assistance. (Id. at p. 1110.)
The record here shows that James had access, through trained legal
research assistants at LRA, to a comprehensive list of legal
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

materials, including treatises and informational pamphlets. James’s
requests for legal materials were not limited in number and were
directed to experienced professionals, who could provide guidance
in his research if he did not have the citation to a specific case or
statute. To this point, Williams’s declaration provided that, “[i]f any
LRA staff member has a question about how to answer an inmate’s
information request, she/he discusses it with the certified paralegal
and/or with me. Together we decide what material best responds to
the inmate’s request.” James could also obtain topical information
pamphlets simply by naming a topic, which would then enable him
to request specific cases, annotated statutes, additional secondary
source material, and Shepardization treatment of a citation. In our
view, the services provided by LRA would reasonably satisfy a legal
researcher’s need to “‘brows[e] through various materials in search
of inspiration....’” (Toussaint, supra, 801 F.2d at p. 1110.)
There is nothing in the record that shows James was denied access
to any particular legal research material, that LRA failed to fully
satisfy any request which James made, or that he was in any way
limited in his ability to represent himself effectively when he was in
pro se status. In fact, the record shows that, during the year and a
half that James represented himself, LRA responded to
approximately 80 separate requests which he made for materials.
And, while representing himself, James filed numerous pretrial
motions, including a motion to dismiss prior convictions and a
motion to set aside the information. All of his motions contained
citations to what appears to be appropriate legal authority.
It is certainly possible that the pace of James’s legal research was
slower than it would have been had he direct access to a law library.
It is equally possible, if not probable, that the research done on
James’s behalf by the experienced professionals of LRA was more
productive and focused than had he attempted the research directly.
The trial court granted James’s initial request for a continuance and
there is nothing in the record that shows James needed a further
continuance of trial because he had been unable to complete
research on any particular issue during that year and a half. James’s
motion for a continuance of the June 1, 2009 trial date merely made
a generalized claim that he needed more time to prepare his defense.
We cannot say, on this record, that James was denied reasonable
access to the services necessary to present a defense.
...
Having concluded that the system for inmate legal research in the
Alameda County jail did not unconstitutionally interfere with
James’s Faretta right, we must also reject James’s contention that
his decision to accept the appointment of counsel, on the eve of trial,
was the result of any unconstitutional interference. (See Moore,
supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1127, 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 253 P.3d 1153.)
James, at 334-39.

27
28
8

1

B.

Legal Standard
Under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, criminal defendants have a right to

2
3

proceed without counsel and represent themselves at trial when they voluntarily and intelligently

4

elect to do so. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975). The United States Supreme Court

5

has held that the denial of access to a law library cannot provide the basis for federal habeas

6

corpus relief because no Supreme Court case clearly establishes a pro se petitioner’s constitutional

7

right to law library access in that context. Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9, 10 (2005) (per

8

curiam); see also Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2006).

9
10

C.

Analysis
Petitioner alleges that the lack of suitable law library access compelled him to waive

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

his right to proceed without counsel. Because the Supreme Court specifically held in Kane that

12

the denial of law library access cannot provide the basis for habeas relief, the state court opinion

13

denying this claim cannot be an unreasonable application of Supreme Court authority. Petitioner

14

counters that the state court decision was an unreasonable application of Bounds v. Smith, 430

15

U.S. 817 (1977).

16

In Bounds, 430 U.S. at 821, the Supreme Court stated that “prisoners have a constitutional

17

right of access to the courts.” However, in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, (1996), the

18

Supreme Court stated “that an inmate alleging a violation of Bounds must show actual injury.”

19

The Court further explained that:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[b]ecause Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a
law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant
actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or
legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense. That
would be the precise analog of the healthy inmate claiming
constitutional violation because of the inadequacy of the prison
infirmary. Insofar as the right vindicated by Bounds is concerned,
meaningful access to the courts is the touchstone, and the inmate
therefore must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged
shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his
efforts to pursue a legal claim.
Id. at 351 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Assuming that Bounds is applicable in the habeas context, petitioner has still not
established a violation. The trial court and California Court of Appeal described in detail the
9

1

comprehensive legal resources available to plaintiff and the employees at the outside legal service

2

that provided research assistance. The trial date was also delayed by three months to provide

3

petitioner additional time to prepare. This Court’s review of the record also indicates that

4

petitioner’s legal filings were well reasoned, and the support provided by the outside legal service

5

was adequate.1 Petitioner has never articulated a specific argument concerning how not being

6

escorted to a law library hindered his efforts to pursue his case. There are no allegations that

7

petitioner needed to research a specific defense or theory relevant to his case and that he had to be

8

physically at a law library to perform the research. Simply stating that the legal resources were

9

insufficient without providing support or an example of why they were insufficient will not lead to
habeas relief. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Conclusory allegations which

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.”). For all these

12

reasons, this claim is denied.

13

IV.

CONCLUSION
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED on the merits. A certificate of

14
15

appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in which “reasonable

16

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

17

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: June 9, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25

13-cv-01021-JD-_hc

26
1

27
28

Petitioner filed numerous well-written motions supported by case law, including a motion to set
aside the information (CT at 190-213), several discovery requests (CT at 261-67), a motion to
disqualify the trial judge (CT at 388-93), a motion to dismiss the charges (CT at 458-70), and
other miscellaneous motions.
10